Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
68170654
label
Office of Management and Budget [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
68170654
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Office of Management and Budget [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush Administration)
R. Glenn Hubbard's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
68170654
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
t010-061d-omb-3-20140342f
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d067df8ea1fcf3c7
ocrText
2014-0342-F
[
]
Monday, April 27, 2015
FOIA Marker
This is not a textual record. This FOIA Marker indicates that material has been removed
during FOIA processing by George W. Bush Presidential Library staff.
Council of Economic Advisers
Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
Location or
NARA Number:
FRC ID:
OA Number:
Stack: Row: Sect.: Shelf: Pos.:
Hollinger ID:
W
30
13
5
1
5648
18583
1403
1551
Folder Title:
Office of Management and Budget [3]
Withdrawn/Redacted Material
The George W. Bush Library
DOCUMENT FORM
SUBJECT/TITLE
PAGES
DATE
RESTRICTION(S)
NO.
001
Budget
Mid Session Review Backup Tables
32
07/15/2002
P5;
COLLECTION TITLE:
Council of Economic Advisers
SERIES:
Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
FOLDER TITLE:
Office of Management and Budget [3]
FRC ID:
5648
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAJ
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
2201(3).
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
Deed of Gift Restrictions
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
A. Closed by Executive Order 13526 governing access to national
Records Not Subject to FOIA
security information.
B. Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
Court Sealed - The document is withheld under a court seal and is not subject to
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
the Freedom of Information Act.
of gift.
2014-0342-F
Page 1 of 1
This document was prepared on Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Memo to the Record
Date: 05/23/2017
Collection: Council of Economic Advisers
Series: Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
Folder Title: Office of Management and Budget [3]
RE: Mid-Session Review, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003
A copy of the report entitled "Mid-Session Review, Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2003" is included at this location in this folder. It was not scanned. It can be viewed
thttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2003-MSR/pdf/BUDGET-2003-MSR.pdf.1fth:
link is broken, please contact the George W. Bush Presidential Library archives for additional
information regarding this item.
MID-SESSION REVIEW TALKING POINTS
We can return to surpluses in FY 2005 by sustaining economic growth and following the President's fiscal discipline:
fully fund the war on terror and homeland security while slowing spending growth in the rest of government. The deficit
widened because the recession and the weak stock market further reduced revenues to the Treasury. The tax cut was
perfectly timed and helped limit further revenue erosion by stabilizing the economy and boosting consumer spending.
Budget projections
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY03-12
Mid Session Review
-165
-109
-48
53
60
84
$ 827B
Feb. budget submission
-106
-80
14
61
86
104
$1.00T
Budget Can Be Back in Balance by FY 2005 With Right Choices. The Mid Session Review shows the federal
budget returning to balance in FY 2005 and returning to the pre-recession pattern of growing surpluses thereafter. This
is based on Congress joining President Bush in slowing spending and sustained economic growth. Spending left
unchecked (i.e. spending trends of the past few years) would add $2T above the President's request and guarantee a
decade of deficits.
Recession and Weak Stock Market Caused Deficit to Widen. In February, OMB projected GDP growth in 2002 of
0.7%. The Mid Session Review now projects FY 2002 growth to be 2.6%, yet revenues will be lower (OMB economic
growth projection is more conservative than Blue Chip estimates). The reason for the widening of the deficit from the
February projection was the impact of the recession on tax revenues, and specifically the effects of the weak stock
market on capital gains receipts.
The War and Recession - Not Tax Relief - Drained the Budget Surplus. The recession erased two-thirds of the
surplus. Homeland security and war spending used 19%, and the tax cut that helped turn the economy around used
less than 15% of the surplus. In fact, if there had been NO TAX CUT, the deficit would still be $124B in FY 2002.
Economic growth and fiscal discipline, not tax increases, is the key to future surpluses.
Tax Relief Put The Economy On The Path to Recovery. As economists and Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan
have noted, the tax cut was well-timed perfectly to combat the recession and begini the recovery. Workers started
getting checks in late July, 2001, pumping $40 billion back into the economy and boosting consumer spending at a
critical time. As a result, the economy grew at 6.1% in the first quarter of 2002 compared to 1.2% in 2001. Residential
investment is growing, home sales and the real estate market are historically strong, and household spending is up.
The tax cut will help create 800,000 jobs by the end of 2002. Now is exactly the wrong time to raise taxes.
Freezing the Tax Cut Will Not Bring Back Surpluses. President Bush is not going to raise taxes, but even if a
portion of the tax cut was repealed as some Democrats are calling for, the Treasury wouldn't see large revenue
increases for years. Raising taxes in the future has little to no impact on today's budget. In fact, the
Lieberman/Kennedy tax hike would raise less than $100B in the first five years. The major source of tax revenue is in
the broad-based tax relief - the 10% and 15% brackets, marriage penalty relief and doubling of the child tax credit to
$1,000. No one, not even Senators Lieberman and Kennedy, is proposing to repeal these broad-based tax cuts.
The Daschle-Conrad Budget Guarantees Long-Term Deficits and Higher Taxes. The Senate has not passed a
budget, but the Daschle-Conrad budget proposed $1.2T in new spending while not identifying a single spending
reduction. The Daschle-Conrad budget also undoes the Bush tax cut, cuts the President's defense request by $225B,
and spends $1.4T of the Social Security surplus from FY 2003-2011. In fact, the Daschle-Conrad budget DOUBLES
the Social Security deficit over the next five years.
"Senate Democrats Tap Social Security in Budget Plan," Washington Post Headline, March 21, 2002.
"At a time when Democrats are denouncing the nation's return to budget deficits, the party's leaders
shouldn't be spraying money around this way," Washington Post Editorial, June 30, 2002.
Withdrawal Marker
The George W. Bush Library
FORM
SUBJECT/TITLE
PAGES
DATE
RESTRICTION(S)
Budget
Mid Session Review Backup Tables
32
07/15/2002
P5;
This marker identifies the original location of the withdrawn item listed above.
For a complete list of items withdrawn from this folder, see the
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet at the front of the folder.
COLLECTION:
Council of Economic Advisers
SERIES:
Hubbard, R. Glenn - Subject Files
FOLDER TITLE:
Office of Management and Budget [3]
FRC ID:
FOIA IDs and Segments:
5648
2014-0342-F
OA Num.:
1551
NARA Num.:
1403
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
2201(3).
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
Deed of Gift Restrictions
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
A. Closed by Executive Order 13526 governing access to national
Records Not Subject to FOIA
security information.
B. Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
Court Sealed - The document is withheld under a court seal and is not subject to
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
the Freedom of Information Act.
of gift.
This Document was withdrawn on 4/15/2015 by WW
SS/ RM NO.
CCDHE
BP
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
Date: 6-7-02 11:30 AM ACTION / CONCURRENCE / COMMENT DUE BY: 610-02 12:00 PM
Subject: MESSAGE TO CONGRESS ON FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE EXPENDITURES
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HUBBARD
CARD
HUGHES
BARTLETT
IRASTORZA
BLAKEMAN
JOHNSON
BOLTEN
LINDSEY
BRIDGELAND
MARBURGER
CALIO
MIERS
CONNAUGHTON
RICE
DANIELS
RIDGE
FLEISCHER
ROVE
GERSON
SPELLINGS
GONZALES
CLERK
HAGIN
HAWKINS
REMARKS:
PLEASE FORWARD YOUR COMMENTS TO ROB FAIRWEATHER, EXTENSION 54583/
FAX 51067, BY 12:00 PM ON MONDAY, JUNE 10, AND SEND A COPY TO THE STAFF
SECRETARY. THANK YOU.
RESPONSE:
Hold this
copy here
Harriet E. Miers
per DHE
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 62702
OF SHIPPING WTR THE PRESIDENT SERVIS at UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
THE DIRECTOR
June 5, 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. MODA
SUBJECT:
Message to Congress on Federal Climate Change
Expenditures
Attached for your consideration is a Message to Congress on Federal expenditures for
climate change programs, to be transmitted to Congress in accordance with Section 559(b) of
Public Law 107-115, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, FY 2002.
This Message to Congress includes a report detailing expenditures related to or
associated with climate change included in the FY 2003 Budget, primarily through their
effects on the use of fossil fuels. The resources identified in this report total $4,475 million,
$653 million or 17 percent higher than FY 2002 enacted. The FY 2003 Budget request for
climate change programs is the highest level ever. This is particularly notable given the
Administration's focus on international and homeland security in your 2003 Budget.
At this level, the United States leads the world in climate change research, spending
more than the 15 nations of the European Union and Japan combined. Over the past decade,
the United States invested nearly $20 billion in climate change research and has increased
our understanding of changes in climate, human links to these changes, and possible
consequences. This report represents one way to inventory the full range of Federal
programs and tax policies associated with energy use and climate change as requested by the
Congress.
Recommendation
I recommend transmittal of this Message to Congress.
Attachment
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
In accordance with section 559(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-115), I transmit
herewith an account of Federal expenditures for climate change programs and activities.
This report includes both domestic and international programs and activities related to
climate change, and associated costs by line item as presented in the President's Budget
Appendix.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May , 2002
FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE EXPENDITURES
REPORT TO CONGRESS
May 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
1
Energy Proposals
5
Tax Incentives
5
Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Sequestration
8
Program Details -- Buildings
8
Program Details -- Transportation
10
Program Details -- Industry
11
Program Details -- Electricity
12
Program Details -- Carbon Sequestration
15
Global Change Science
17
Program Elements
18
International Assistance
20
Program Details
20
Other Climate-Related Programs
22
Program Details
22
Detailed Accounting of Federal Climate Change Expenditures
24
Addendum
28
Global Environment Facility
28
Appendix
A: U.S. Agency for International Development: Funding by Country and
Project
31
i
TABLES
Page
Table 1. Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures
4
Table 2. Energy Tax Incentives
5
Table 3. Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Sequestration
8
Table 4. U.S. Global Change Research Program
17
Table 5. Climate Change Research Initiative
18
Table 6. International Assistance
20
Table 7. Other Climate-Related Programs
22
Table 8. Detailed Accounting of Federal Climate Change Programs By Account
24
ii
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON
FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE EXPENDITURES
Introduction
The following is a detailed account of Federal spending and performance goals for climate change
programs and activities, both domestic and international, as included in the President's FY 2003
Budget. This report is being provided in response to Section 559(b) of Public Law 107-115, Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002.
On February 14, 2002, President Bush announced a new national goal to reduce the "greenhouse gas
intensity" of the American economy by 18 percent during the next decade. Achieving this goal will
require an enhanced and sustained national effort to develop and deploy advanced energy and
sequestration technologies, while maintaining a strong American economy. As reflected in the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to which the United States is a
party, global climate change represents a serious, long-term challenge for all of the nations of the world.
Relying on a range of significant investments in reducing the scientific uncertainties associated with
anthropogenic climate change, advancing the development and introduction of energy-efficient and
renewable technologies, and incentivizing emissions reductions throughout our economy, the
Administration has proposed a comprehensive plan for achieving meaningful progress in tackling this
challenge. The budget information presented in this Report reflects the Administration's intensified focus
and prioritization of meeting our international commitments under the UNFCCC and responsibility to
the American people for preserving a strong American economy.
The President's FY 2003 Budget proposes $4,475 million, $653 million or 17 percent higher than FY
2002 enacted, for spending programs and tax policies related to or associated with climate change,
primarily through their effects on the use of fossil fuels. The Budget request for climate change
programs is the highest level ever, though some programs were reduced to eliminate unrequested
earmarks or certain projects approaching commercialization that are more properly funded by the
private sector. Other higher priority programs were increased. At this level, the United States leads
the world in climate change research, spending more than the 15 nations of the European Union and
Japan combined. Over the past decade, the United States has invested nearly $20 billion in such
research and has increased our understanding of changes in climate, human links to these changes, and
possible consequences.
The programs and tax policies in this report represent one way to inventory a set of programs and tax
policies associated with energy use and climate change. Funding generally falls into four major program
areas.
Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Sequestration. The programs in this
category have the effect of stimulating the development and use of renewable energy technologies and
energy efficient products that can help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The FY 2003
Budget proposes $1,757 million in discretionary spending and tax incentives, an increase of $539
million over FY 2002 enacted. In addition to programs administered by the Department of Energy
(DOE), this category also includes programs within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Department of Agriculture (USDA). See Tables 2-3 for detailed information about the programs
and tax proposals in this category.
In June, 2001, the President committed the United States to work within the United Nation's
framework to develop an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming. He
noted that the United States is a leader in innovation and technology and that technology offers great
promise to address this issue. As part of this commitment, he created a National Climate Change
Technology Initiative. The National Climate Change Technology Initiative integrates a number of
interdependent facets of the technological component of this approach to the global warming issue:
applied research and development; supporting basic research carried out by universities and national
laboratories; partnering with industry and others, including international partners, in order to move
technologies into the marketplace; promoting cutting-edge technologies through demonstration projects;
and measuring and monitoring greenhouse gas emissions, inventories and flows. The results of this
Initiative are expected to provide a framework for guiding the technology component of climate change
related Federal R&D.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. The United States Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) seeks to provide a sound scientific understanding of both the human and natural forces that
influence the Earth's climate system. The information produced by USGCRP's scientists is used by
national and international policy makers to make informed decisions on global change issues. The FY
2003 Budget proposes $1,714 million for the USGCRP, an increase of $44 million over FY 2002
enacted. See Table 4 for detailed information about the USGCRP.
In addition to the USGCRP, the FY 2003 Budget requests $40 million for the new Climate Change
Research Initiative (CCRI), which was created by the President to advance and bring focus to climate
change research. The CCRI complements the existing USGCRP. CCRI funding will be shared among
five agencies (NOAA, NASA, NSF, USDA, DOE), and the program will adopt performance metrics
and deliverable products useful to policymakers in a short time frame (2 to 5 years). It will improve the
integration of scientific knowledge, including measures of uncertainty, into effective decision support
systems. See Table 5 for information about the CCRI.
International Assistance. International assistance programs support developing country efforts to
address climate change through improvements in energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use changes
and forestry practices. The FY 2003 Budget proposes $211 million, an increase of $32 million over
FY 2002 enacted, for climate change programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International
Development and to support the Secretariat of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. See Table 6 for information on international assistance
programs related to climate change, and Appendix A for obligations and expenditures by country and
2
activity for the Agency for International Development as requested in Section 559 (b)(2) of Public Law
107-115.
Other Climate-Related Programs. There are several programs that exist primarily for another
purpose or have multiple environmental benefits, but also contribute to improving energy efficiency and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The programs identified in this category include: DOE's
Weatherization and State Energy Grants; DOE programs that promote cleaner coal and natural gas
combustion, and nuclear energy R&D; and, U.S. contributions to the Global Environment Facility
(GEF). GEF funding helps address trans-border environmental problems like international water
pollution, biological diversity conservation, and climate change. The GEF's climate change projects are
related to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, not the Kyoto Protocol. The FY
2003 Budget proposes $807 million, an increase of $20 million over FY 2002 enacted, for the
programs in this category. See Table 7 for more details on these programs.
3
Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures
Table 1. Programs and Tax Policies Related to Climate Change
FY 2003 Budget
(Budget authority and tax incentives; in millions of dollars)
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Directly Related Programs & Policies
Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewable Energy, and
Sequestration
-- Spending Programs
1,176
1,218
1,202
-16
-- Tax Incentives 1
-
-
555
+555
2
-- National Climate Change Technology Initiative
-
-
-
I
U.S. Global Change Research Program
1,728
1,670
1,714
+44
Climate Change Research Initiative
-
-
40
+40
International Assistance
177
179
211
+32
Other Climate-Related Programs
DOE -- Weatherization & State Energy Grants
191
275
316
+41
DOE -- Fossil Energy R&D (cleaner coal &
natural gas)
274
442
398
-44
DOE - Nuclear Energy R&D (NERI)
34
32
25
-7
Treasury - Global Environment Facility 3
41
38
68
+30
TOTAL 4
3,603
3,822
4,475
+653
Note:
I
The cost of the five energy tax incentives related to climate change included in the President's FY 2003 Budget is
$4.6 billion over five years; $7.1 billion over ten years.
2
The National Climate Change Technology (NCCTI) will build on an existing base of research and development in
climate change technology, primarily at DOE, EPA, and USDA. The President's FY 2003 Budget requests $40
million for NCCTI within the DOE budget. Specific research areas are being identified through an interagency
review process.
3 The total FY 2003 request for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is $177.8 million. Approximately 38% of
total GEF funding from all sources supports climate-related projects (e.g. expanding clean energy production and
efficient energy use). The GEF, which also provides funding for other global environmental concerns, does not
allocate funds by project type.
4
Total may not add due to rounding. Total adjusted to eliminate double counts.
4
Energy Policy Proposals
Table 2. Tax Incentives
FY 2003 Budget
(Revenue effect in millions of dollars)
Total
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003-07
Homes
Provide tax credit for residential solar energy
systems.
-6
-7
-8
-17
-24
-62
Renewable Energy
Extend the tax credit for electricity produced from
wind and biomass for three years; expand
eligible biomass sources to include certain
biomass produced from forest-related resources,
agricultural sources, and other specified sources.
-227
-303
-212
-143
-146
-1031
Transportation
Provide tax credit for purchase of certain hybrid
and fuel cell vehicles.
-80
-181
-349
-530
-763
-1903
Industry
Provide tax credit for energy produced from landfill
gas.
-34
-59
-86
-120
-140
-439
Provide tax credit for combined heat and power
property.
-208
-235
-238
-296
-139
-1116
TOTAL
-555
-785
-893
-1106
-1212
-4551
Note:
1 Total may not add due to rounding.
5
Energy Policy Proposals - Tax Incentives. The President is proposing $4,551 million in clean energy
tax credits over five years ($7.1 billion over ten years) for investments in renewable energy (solar, wind,
and biomass), hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, co-generation, and landfill gas conversion. (see Table 2).
These incentives are important to meeting the nation's long-term energy supply and security needs,
reducing pollution, and projected greenhouse gas emissions. The following is an explanation of the clean
energy tax incentives proposed in the FY 2003 Budget.
Homes
Tax credit for residential solar energy systems. Current law provides a 10-percent investment
tax credit to businesses for qualifying equipment that uses solar energy to generate electricity; to heat,
cool or provide hot water for use in a structure; or to provide solar process heat. No credit is
available for nonbusiness purchases of solar energy equipment. The Administration proposes a new
tax credit for individuals who purchase photovoltaic equipment and solar water heating systems for
use in a dwelling unit that the individual uses as a residence. Equipment would qualify for the credit
only if used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming pools. An individual would be
allowed a cumulative maximum credit of $2,000 per residence for photovoltaic equipment and
$2,000 per residence for solar water heating systems. The credit for solar water heating equipment
would apply only if placed in service after December 31, 2001 and before January 1, 2006, and to
photovoltaic systems placed in service after December 31, 2001 and before January 1, 2008.
Renewable Energy
Tax credit for electricity produced from wind or biomass. Current law provides taxpayers a 1.5
cent-per-kilowatt hour tax credit (adjusted for inflation after 1992) for electricity produced from
wind, "closed-loop" biomass, and poultry waste. Biomass refers to trees, crops and agricultural
wastes used to produce power, fuels or chemicals. The electricity must be sold to an unrelated third
party and the credit applies to the first 10 years of production. The current tax credit covers facilities
placed in service before January 1, 2002, after which it expires. The new proposal would:
Extend current biomass credit. This proposal would extend for three years the 1.5 cent-per-
kilowatt hour biomass credit for facilities placed in service before January 1, 2005.
Expand definition of eligible biomass. This proposal expands the definition of eligible
biomass to include certain forest-related resources and agricultural and other sources for facilities
placed in service before January 1, 2002. Electricity produced at such facilities from newly
eligible sources would be eligible for the credit only from January 1, 2002, through December
31, 2004. The credit for such electricity would be computed at a rate equal to 60 percent of the
generally applicable rate. Electricity produced from newly eligible biomass co-fired in coal plants
would be eligible for the credit only from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2004.
6
Transportation
Tax credit for hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Currently, a 10 percent tax credit up to $4,000 is
provided for the cost of a qualified electric vehicle. A qualified electric vehicle is a motor vehicle that
is powered primarily by an electric motor drawing current from rechargeable batteries, fuel cells, or
other portable sources of electric current. Electric and hybrid vehicles have the potential to reduce
petroleum consumption, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. To encourage the purchase of
such vehicles the Administration is proposing the following tax credits:
A credit of up to $4,000 for qualified hybrid vehicles purchased after December 31, 2001 and
before January 1, 2008. The amount of the credit would depend on the percentage of maximum
available power provided by the rechargeable energy storage system and the amount by which
the vehicle's fuel economy exceeds the 2000 model year city fuel economy.
A credit of up to $8,000 for new qualified fuel cell vehicles purchased after December 31, 2001
and before January 1, 2008. A minimum credit of $4,000 would be provided, which would
increase as the vehicle's fuel efficiency exceeded the 2000 model year city fuel economy,
reaching a maximum credit of $8,000 if the vehicle achieved at least 300 percent of the 2000
model year city fuel economy.
Industry
Tax credit for energy produced from landfill gas. Taxpayers that produce gas from biomass are
eligible for a credit equal to $3 per barrel-of-oil equivalent. To qualify, the gas must be produced
domestically from a facility placed in service before July 1, 1998 and sold to an unrelated person
before January 1, 2008. The new proposal would extend the credit to fuel produced from landfill
methane produced from a facility in service after December 31, 2001 and before January 1, 2011.
The credit for fuel produced at landfills subject to EPA's 1996 New Source Performance
Standards/Emissions Guidelines would be limited to two-thirds of the otherwise applicable amount if
any portion of the facility for producing fuel at the landfill was placed in service before July 1, 1998,
and beginning on January 1, 2002, in all other cases.
Tax credit for combined heat and power property. Combined heat and power (CHP), also
known as co-generation, is a highly efficient form of electric generation that recycles heat which is
normally lost under traditional power combustion methods. CHP captures the heat left over from
industrial use, providing a source of residential and industrial heating and air conditioning in the local
area around the power plant. CHP systems achieve a greater level of overall energy efficiency,
thereby reducing energy consumption, costs, and carbon emissions. No income tax credit is
available for investment in CHP property. The Administration is proposing a new 10 percent
investment credit for qualified CHP systems placed in service after December 31, 2001 and before
January 1, 2007.
7
Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Sequestration
Table 3. Program Details by Agency/Account
FY 2003 Budget
(Discretionary budget authority; in millions of dollars)
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Department of Energy (DOE)
Energy Supply
375
393
408
+15
Renewable Energy Resources R&D
(370)
(386)
(408)
(+22)
Nuclear Energy
(5)
(7)
(0)
(-7)
Energy Conservation R&D
619
640
588
-52
Fossil Energy R&D (sequestration R&D)
18
32
54
+22
Science
35
35
35
0
Energy Information Administration
3
3
3
0
Subtotal - DOE
1,050
1,103
1,088
-15
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Environmental Programs & Management
96
89
91
+2
Science and Technology
27
26
17
-9
Subtotal -- EPA
123
115
108
-7
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service
Forest and Rangeland Research
3
0
1
+1
Agricultural Research Service
0
0
5
+5
Subtotal -- USDA
3
0
6
+6
TOTAL¹
1,176
1,218
1,202
-16
Note:
1
Total may not add due to rounding.
Energy Efficiency, Conservation, and Renewable Energy, and Sequestration -- Program
Details. The FY 2003 Budget proposes $1,202 million in discretionary funding, a decrease of $16
million from FY 2002 enacted, for research, development, and deployment of renewable energy
technologies and energy efficient products that help reduce the use of fossil fuels and U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions. Better methods to measure and monitor carbon dioxide in soils and from forests are also
funded. Table 3 provides a detailed accounting by agency of the energy efficiency, conservation,
renewable energy, and sequestration programs in this report. The following sections highlight selected
agency programs.
1. BUILDINGS
The buildings sector is responsible for about 33 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Most of the emissions result from the electricity needed to run appliances and equipment in
8
buildings, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. The budget
includes programs within DOE and EPA designed to develop highly efficient new appliances and
HVAC systems, and to more rapidly deploy energy efficient products for buildings and homes
throughout the marketplace. The following is a summary of the major activities by agency in the
buildings sector:
DOE Building Technology Program. The budget includes $93 million for DOE's building
technology and related activities, a decrease of $12 million from FY 2002 enacted. DOE has
been working with industry to define technology "roadmaps" toward more efficient buildings,
and is using that process to guide its R&D programs.
One major component is the Building America program, which creates partnerships with
traditional housing developers and manufacturers of industrialized housing to demonstrate how
new technologies can be integrated into homes cost-effectively and to disseminate that
knowledge to other builders. DOE works with States to encourage them to voluntarily upgrade
their commercial and residential building energy codes to require greater energy efficiency in all
new construction. DOE's Rebuild America program is the centerpiece of a newly-
consolidated Community Energy Program community partners in Rebuild America have
committed to improving the energy efficiency of building space.
DOE also funds significant research on more efficient building equipment and appliances, such
as advanced lighting, heat pumps, chillers, and commercial refrigeration. DOE develops and
promulgates energy efficiency standards for many categories of appliances and also develops
testing methodologies used to set standards and to provide efficiency rating labels. (DOE's
rating and labeling programs are performed in partnership with the Federal Trade Commission.)
Standards and test procedure development will continue for a variety of appliances and will
continue to support the joint EPA-DOE Energy Star program.
EPA Buildings Programs. The budget proposes $50 million, an increase of $1 million over
FY 2002 enacted, for EPA's ENERGY STAR partnerships (including ENERGY STAR
Labeling and the ENERGY STAR Buildings Program). EPA will work toward the goal of
offsetting about 24 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions above 1990 levels
expected by 2010 in this sector.
EPA will actively promote its new buildings benchmark tool and work with building owners and
mangers to benchmark a total of 29,000 buildings nationwide. EPA will expand its public
sector work to increase the number of partnerships with schools and universities and state and
local governments to over 1,200. EPA will also continue to actively recruit new small
businesses and organizations into ENERGY STAR with the goal of reaching over 7,000
participants in 2003. EPA will continue to play a key role in advancing the efficiency of the
Federal Government by enhancing the ability of agencies to procure energy efficient products as
well as assist agencies in benchmarking and labeling their high-performing buildings.
9
2. TRANSPORTATION
Cars, trucks, aircraft, and other parts of the Nation's transportation system emit about one third of
the total of U.S. greenhouse gases. A range of new technologies make it possible for Americans to
continue to enjoy the best personal transportation in the world while significantly reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, many communities are developing innovative ways to
reduce congestion and transportation energy needs by improving highway designs and urban
planning, and by encouraging mass transit.
DOE Transportation Technology Programs. The budget proposes $223 million, a
decrease of $30 million from FY 2002 enacted (excludes $53 million in biofuels R&D funded in
Renewable Energy Resources and included in the electricity sector below). DOE's Office of
Transportation Technologies (OTT) funds research, development, and deployment of
technologies that can significantly alter current trends in oil consumption. Commercialization of
innovative vehicle technologies and alternative fuels is the nation's best strategy for reducing its
reliance on oil. These advanced technologies could also result in dramatic reductions in criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. DOE funds research
and development for advanced power-train technology (direct-injection) engines, hybrid-
electric drive systems, advanced batteries, fuel cells, and light weight materials and for
alternative fuels (including ethanol from biomass, natural gas, methanol, electricity, and
biodiesel). About half of OTT's R&D funding supports FreedomCAR, a new partnership with
the auto industry that builds on the technical successes of its predecessor (PNGV), and
improves on management and focus.
DOE also funds research to improve the engine efficiency of heavy-duty truck engines while
reducing oxides of nitrogen emissions to near-zero levels. This research includes both fuel
injection/combustion research and exhaust after-treatment for particulates and nitrogen oxide.
This research will be complemented by R&D to reduce parasitic loses from aerodynamic drag
and rolling resistance (including computer aerodynamic modeling of new truck body designs);
and to make greater use of lower-weight, high-strength materials for all classes of trucks.
EPA Transportation Programs. The budget proposes $22 million, a decrease of $9 million
from FY 2002 enacted, for EPA's clean automotive technology initiative and activities that
promote partnerships with State and local governments and transportation authorities to reduce
carbon dioxide and other transportation related pollutants. Funding will enable EPA to
continue its work under Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with
the automotive industry covering both SUVs and urban delivery vehicles. The successful
technology development patented by EPA will help to lay the foundation for cost-effective
commercialization of high fuel economy, low emission vehicles for delivery to market between
2005 and 2010.
Funding will also continue EPA's work with companies and State and local governments on
transportation improvements that reduce vehicle emissions and congestion. Additionally, EPA
10
will develop projects to reduce diesel idling time at truck stops and along highways. EPA will
partner with States and manufacturers of idling control devices to help install idle control
technologies on trucks and at truck stops that could save one gallon of diesel fuel for each hour
a vehicle idles.
3. INDUSTRY
Programs in the industry sector support Federal research efforts to develop innovative technologies
and production methods which can help businesses achieve productivity gains and prosper in a
competitive marketplace while leading to major reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.
Manufacturing, materials, and process industries produce over 80 percent of hazardous wastes and
95 percent of toxic wastes. Many of the greenhouse gas emission technologies can help reduce the
generation of these wastes.
DOE Industry Technology Program. The budget proposes $138 million, a decrease of $11
million from FY 2002 enacted, for DOE's industrial research and related programs. Key DOE
industry programs include:
Industries of the Future. This DOE program works cooperatively with the nation's most
energy-intensive industries -- such as aluminum, glass, chemicals, forest products, mining,
and steel -- on developing technologies that increase energy and resource efficiency.
Promising collaborative efforts include improvements in the process of making steel, pulp
and paper, and other energy-intensive products that could dramatically increase efficiency,
lower greenhouse gas emissions, and improve competitiveness.
The Industries of the Future/Crosscutting program supports work that has benefits
across many industry sectors. The Integrated Materials program supports development of
a range of other advanced materials with special properties, such as intermetallic
compounds, metal-matrix composites, and inorganic membranes. Assistance to innovative
industries will continue with expanded NICE3 and Inventions and Innovations programs
that support the development of energy-efficiency and pollution/waste control technologies.
The Industrial Assessment Centers will continue to perform energy and waste-management
audits at small and medium sized businesses. The Best Practices programs provide
technical expertise and information products to businesses of all sizes on how to use
motors, compressed air and steam in an integrated system context. The program also
provides plant-wide energy assessments, documented energy savings case studies, and
helps to accelerate the adoption by industry of the best available and emerging technologies
and best practices.
EPA Industry Programs. The budget proposes $26 million, an increase of less than $1 million
over FY 2002 enacted, for EPA's programs in the industrial sector focusing on reducing
carbon dioxide emissions and continuing the successful initiatives to reduce methane emissions
and emissions of the high global-warming potential gases. EPA's goals for these efforts are to:
11
1) greatly enhance the rate of energy and resource efficiency improvements in industry between
now and 2010 (working with DOE); 2) cost-effectively return emissions of methane to 1990
levels or below by 2010; 3) cost-effectively limit emissions of the more potent greenhouse
gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6); and 4) facilitate the use of clean energy technologies and purchases
of renewable energy.
Stewardship Programs for the Reduction of Potent Greenhouse Gases. EPA will
continue its programs to reduce the more potent greenhouse gases, including methane,
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆).
EPA will expand partnerships with the magnesium industry and with the electric power
industry to reduce emissions of SF₆ and will work with the semiconductor, aluminum, and
chemical industries to reduce HFC and PFC emissions.
Methane Programs. EPA will continue its programs to reduce emissions of methane, a
gas with more than 20 times the heat trapping capability as carbon dioxide. EPA will
work with the natural gas industry, the coal mining industry, the waste management
industry, and the agricultural industry to promote cost-effective reductions of methane
emissions resulting in a return of methane emissions to 1990 levels or below by 2010. This
program has significant potential to achieve cost-effective and meaningful greenhouse gas
emission reductions in the American economy.
ENERGY STAR for Industry. EPA's ENERGY STAR for Industry (formerly Climate
Wise) program will continue to work with individual partnership companies. EPA will
enhance and expand the ENERGY STAR program for industry by developing energy and
related productivity benchmarks of industrial plant performance for five U.S. industries.
Combined Heat and Power. EPA will work to promote efficient systems that generate
heat and electricity simultaneously at greatly improved conversion efficiencies over single
purpose units. This effort could double the capacity of U.S. combined heat and power
systems employed by commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings, and in communities
throughout the U.S. EPA will work to identify and eliminate the regulatory and institutional
barriers that are currently preventing more rapid dissemination of this important
technology.
4. ELECTRICITY
The generation of electricity in the U.S. is responsible for more than a third of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions. The budget funds programs in renewable energy technologies. The key DOE programs
in this sector are:
DOE Renewable Energy Resources Programs. The budget proposes $408 million, an
increase of $22 million over FY 2002 enacted, for DOE's renewable programs. These include
12
varieties of solar energy (generating electricity either through concentrated heat or
photovoltaics), biomass power, wind energy, geothermal power, hydropower, and hydrogen
production and storage.
Solar Energy. Over the past 20 years, Federal R&D has resulted in a 80 percent cost
reduction in solar photovoltaics. DOE will maintain R&D of the next generation
photovoltaic cells; manufacturing R&D; research in buildings-integrated applications; and
fund efforts to develop new, unconventional technologies.
Biopower. Biomass represents a tremendous renewable resource whose use can help
strengthen our energy security, protect the environment, and enhance our rural economy.
DOE is testing and demonstrating biomass co-firing with coal; developing advanced
technologies for biomass gasification; developing and demonstrating small modular systems;
and conducting R&D to help develop "biorefineries" of the future.
Wind. Use of wind energy is growing very fast. Technologies under development by DOE
and its partners can enable a twenty-fold or more expansion of usable wind resources, and
make wind energy economically viable without the need for Federal incentives. Wind R&D
will now focus on advancing the technology so it can be used in low wind speed areas,
greatly enhancing the potential use of this renewable energy source.
Geothermal. Geothermal represents a huge renewable resource which could provide
25,000-50,000 megawatts of generating capacity from currently identified hydrothermal
resources if technology existed to develop these resources at a reasonable cost. DOE's
R&D program focuses on exploration and drilling to enable industry to locate and
characterize new geothermal fields at reduced risk, and to access deeper resources with
lower drilling costs. DOE also supports advanced technology in heat conversion and
power systems for application to a broad range of geothermal resources. Researchers
work in partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as an economically
competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply. DOE's R&D program and activities to
reduce barriers to development will allow geothermal energy to supply electrical power and
heat to homes and businesses across the country.
Hydropower. DOE is funding the development of a new generation of hydropower
turbines that will kill far fewer fish than current designs do, and will also maintain higher
levels of dissolved oxygen in the water, which keeps river ecosystems healthier.
Hydropower is an important form of zero-carbon electricity generation for the nation.
Hydrogen. DOE will continue to fund its research on low-cost hydrogen production and
storage, prerequisites to the widespread use of hydrogen as a fuel. The program now looks
toward the Proton-Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells being developed for hybrid
vehicles and for cogeneration in buildings as the first significant markets for hydrogen, which
13
will be ready within 5 years. More than half of the hydrogen budget supports the new
FreedomCAR public-private partnership.
The program funds R&D on thermal (steam and advanced auto-thermal reforming)
production on hydrogen from both natural gas and biomass, and on methods to use either
algae and bacteria or photocatalytic techniques to produce hydrogen. The hydrogen
storage research program is exploring a number of novel adsorption mechanisms, including
carbon nanotubes and improved metal hydrides. DOE's Technology Validation effort is
funding demonstrations of prototype fuel cells, a fueling station for vehicles, and on-site
storage systems for solar production of hydrogen. The latter includes a reversible
electrolyzer/fuel cell that can produce hydrogen from electricity while the sun is shining, and
electricity from hydrogen when it's dark.
Deployment. DOE funds the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI), which
provides payments to public and non-profit utilities in lieu of renewable energy tax credits.
Public and non-profit utilities are not eligible for these tax credits because they pay no
taxes. DOE's International Renewable Energy program provides technical assistance to
developing countries and U.S. industries to help them put together climate change projects.
The program also funds market and trade development activities and works with other
agencies to incorporate solar and renewable energy into disaster-relief programs.
Transmission and Distribution. DOE funds development of advanced storage systems
to supply ultra-high power quality to sensitive loads, smooth the power output form
distributed generation sources including intermittent renewable sources, and enhance the
reliability of the transmission and distribution systems. DOE also addresses power grid
reliability, and efficient electricity market operation issues by developing real-time
measurement and control systems for electric grid management. This work also investigates
the use of load management techniques to mitigate emergency power shortages and price
spikes. In order to promote and facilitate the integration of distributed sources into the grid,
DOE funds development of uniform interconnection standards for distributed power
generation, and funds studies to identify barriers to the wider use of distributed generation.
High Temperature Superconductivity. DOE supports industry-led projects to capitalize
on recent breakthroughs in superconducting wire technology, aimed at developing devices
such as advanced motors, power cables, and transformers. These technologies would
allow more electricity to reach the consumer without an increase in fossil fuel input.
Distributed Energy Resources. DOE has combined the development of Distributed
Energy Resources (distributed generation, energy storage and load management) into one
office to lead the seamless integration of these technologies into the distribution system, the
power grid, competitive markets, and the individual customer site. The office is supporting
work to increase the efficiency, and reduce the cost and emissions of advanced natural
14
gas-driven microturbines, fuel cells, and reciprocating engines, and developing advanced
high temperature materials to improve their performance. High system efficiencies are
achieved from these sources by linking them into building combined heat and power
systems with advanced absorption heat pumps, chillers and desiccant systems that are also
being developed in the program.
5. CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Carbon dioxide can be sequestered (stored) through changes in both forestry and agricultural
practices. These programs focus on methods to capture and store carbon dioxide, measure and
monitor carbon in soils and from agricultural practices, and to improve estimates of carbon fluxes
from forests.
DOE Carbon Sequestration Science Programs. The budget proposes $35 million, the
same level as FY 2002 enacted, for DOE carbon removal programs in the Office of Science.
DOE's programs include research into the feasibility of capturing and storing carbon dioxide in
underground geological structures and in the deep ocean.
DOE Fossil Energy Carbon Sequestration Programs. The budget proposes $54 million,
an increase of $22 million over FY 2002 enacted, for DOE fossil energy carbon sequestration
programs. Carbon sequestration is potentially one of the lowest cost approaches for reducing
or perhaps virtually eliminating man made carbon dioxide emissions. The purpose of the fossil
energy program is to develop and demonstrate technically, economically, and ecologically
sound methods to capture and reuse, store or permanently isolate carbon dioxide from the
environment. The program goal is to make available sequestration options starting in 2015 at a
cost of no more than $10 per ton of carbon (or about two tenths of a cent in the cost of
electricity). When linked with new advanced clean coal power technologies now under
development, the program will enable the deployment of clean coal power plants with
essentially zero emissions.
The principal thrust of the carbon sequestration program is to develop the applied science
and new technologies for addressing the cost-effective management/sequestration of carbon
emissions from the production and use of fossil fuels. The program primarily selects research
topics and projects through competitive solicitations involving industry, university, and national
laboratory performers. Close collaborations with other DOE, government, industry, and
international organizations are maintained providing an integrated approach to advancing the
science and technology of carbon sequestration.
EPA Carbon Removal Programs. The budget proposes $2 million, about the same level as
FY 2002 enacted, to allow EPA to enhance efforts to better quantify the associated
environmental co-benefits that result from carbon sequestration. These benefits include
improving soil quality, reducing soil erosion, improving water quality, providing wildlife habitat,
15
and enhancing other environmental and conservation goals. EPA will continue to collaborate
with USDA to address the misperceptions regarding carbon sequestration and to ensure that
this important mitigation option is developed in an environmentally sound and economically
efficient way. EPA and USDA will identify and develop specific opportunities to sequester
carbon in agricultural soils, forests, other vegetation and commercial products.
USDA Technology Research. The budget proposes approximately $6 million to strengthen
basic climate change technology research and to develop methods for measuring carbon in
soils. USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will develop methods to manage crops,
soils, and grazing systems to achieve the best balance of agricultural productivity, resource
conservation, and carbon sequestration. Work will also focus on methods for managing
livestock to minimize methane emissions. The Forest Service will support the development of
measuring tools and monitoring technologies to improve estimates of carbon fluxes from forests.
16
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Table 4. By Agency/Appropriation Account
FY 2003 Budget
(Discretionary budget authority; in millions of dollars)
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Department of Health and Human Service
National Institutes of Health
54
60
68
+8
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology
1,176
1,090
1,109
+19
Department of Energy
Science (Biological & Environmental Research)
116
120
126
+6
National Science Foundation
Research and Related Activities
181
188
188
0
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
29
30
30
0
Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Services
Research and Education
4
9
17
+8
Economic Research Service
1
1
1
0
Forest Service
Forest and Rangeland Research
17
17
17
0
Subtotal - USDA
51
57
65
+8
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Operations, Research, and Facilities
93
100
100
0
Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
27
28
28
-2
Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology
23
21
22
+1
Smithsonian Institution
Salaries and Expenses
7
7
7
0
TOTAL 1
1,728
1,670
1,714
+44
Note:
1
Total may not add due to rounding.
17
Climate Change Research Initiative
Table 5. By Agency/Appropriation Account
FY 2003 Budget
(Discretionary budget authority; dollars in millions)
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Operations, Research, and Facilities
---
--
18
+18
National Science Foundation
Research and Related Activities
---
---
15
+15
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology
---
-
3
+3
Department of Energy
Science (Biological & Environmental Research)
---
-
3
+3
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service/Natural Resources Conservation
Service
1
---
-
1
+1
TOTAL
-
---
40
+40
Note:
1
Based on $500,000 for the Forest Service and $500,000 for the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. Much of the U.S. investment in research on climate and
other global environmental changes is coordinated through the U.S. Global Change Research program
(USGCRP). The USGCRP has existed for more than a decade, and provides funding at nine different
agencies for fundamental research on natural and human-induced changes in the global environment,
with the goal of attaining a more complete understanding of global climate change to better respond to
the challenges it presents. The FY 2003 Budget proposes $1,714 million for the USGCRP, an
increase of $44 million over the FY 2002 enacted level.
Climate Change Research Initiative. In addition to the USGCRP, the FY 2003 Budget requests
$40 million for the new Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), which was created by the
President to advance and bring focus to climate change research. The CCRI complements the existing
USGCRP. CCRI funding in FY 2003 will be shared among five agencies (NOAA, NASA, NSF,
USDA, DOE), and the program will adopt performance metrics and deliverable products useful to
policymakers in a short time frame (2 to 5 years). It will improve the integration of scientific
18
knowledge, including measures of uncertainty, into effective decision support systems. CCRI funding in
2003 will focus on two main areas: reducing the uncertainties in climate science, and supporting policy
and management decisions. In the first category, specific priorities include understanding the North
American carbon cycle, developing reliable representation of global and regional climatic forcing by
atmospheric aerosols, and investing in computer modeling. In the second category, specific priorities
include developing tools for risk management under uncertainty and ensuring high-quality, long-term
climate data records.
19
International Assistance
Table 6. International Climate Change Assistance
FY 2003 Budget
(Discretionary budget authority; in millions of dollars)
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Agency for International Development
Development Assistance (DA)
112
110
109
-1
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
---
12
6
-6
Assistance for the Independent States of the
Former Soviet Union (FSA)
31
32
27
-5
Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic
States (AEEB)
13
10
8
-2
International Disaster Assistance (IDA)
-
4
5
+1
Development Credit Authority (DCA)
1
---
---
---
Tropical Forest Conservation 1
---
---
50
+50
Subtotal - AID
157
167
205
+38
Department of Treasury
Debt Restructuring
Tropical Forest Conservation²
13
5
---
-5
Department of State
International Organizations and Programs
7
7
6
-1
Total 3
177
179
211
+32
Note:
1
Prior to the FY 2003 President's Budget request, funding for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act
(TFCA) was appropriated to the Treasury Department.
2 In FY 2002, an additional $20 million in existing balances may be used.
3 Total may not add due to rounding.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The budget proposes $205 million, an
increase of $38 million over FY 2002 enacted, for USAID's climate change programs and for tropical
forest conservation. The goal of USAID's climate change programs are to promote sustainable
development that minimizes the associated growth in greenhouse gas emissions and reduces
vulnerability to climate change. To accomplish this goal, USAID works in developing and transition
countries to implement "win-win" solutions that provide climate-related benefits while also meeting
development objectives in the energy sector, urban areas, forest conservation, agriculture, and disaster
assistance. These solutions include activities that: 1) promote the transfer of clean energy technologies;
2) measure reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; 3) promote carbon capture through improved land
20
use; 4) support countries to participate more effectively in the U.S. Framework Convention on Climate
Change; and 5) assess vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and increase adaptive capacity.
Although USAID works on climate change issues in more than 40 countries, the Agency has focused its
climate change activities in three sub-regions: Central Africa, Central America and Central Asia, and
eight countries: Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine.
The President's FY 2003 budget proposal seeks $50 million in funding for tropical forest conservation,
of which $40 million may be used for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA). One purpose of
this initiative is to enable developing countries to play an increased role in addressing the world's climate
change problem through storing carbon in forests. The main elements of the initiative will be: (1)
remote sensing and developing capacity to monitor deforestation and enable local governments to
better control illegal and destructive logging in their countries; (2) addressing the problem of illegal and
destructive logging practices, working with governments, non-governmental organizations and private
industry; and (3) addressing deforestation through the use of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act as
well as other innovative funding mechanisms such as commercial debt for nature swaps under the
Foreign Assistance Act Title I, Chapter 7 authority and new partnerships with U.S. industries and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs).
Department of State The budget includes $6 million, about $1 million less than FY 2002 enacted,
to support the work carried out by the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
Secretariat is responsible for work related to the Convention and oversees the consideration of
communications submitted by countries. The IPCC is the single, most authoritative, international
scientific and technical assessment body with respect to climate change. The Panel's assessment efforts
provide information on the scientific and technical underpinnings of domestic and international policies
to combat the threat of global climate change, and its findings influence policy debates within and
between countries.
21
Other Climate-Related Programs
Table 7. Other Climate Change-Related Programs
FY 2003 Budget
(Budget authority; in millions of dollars)
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Department of Energy
Energy Conservation R&D
Weatherization & State Energy Grants
191
275
316
+41
Fossil Energy R&D (cleaner coal/natural gas)
274
442
398
-44
Energy Supply
Nuclear Energy R&D (NERI)
34
32
25
-7
Subtotal - DOE
499
749
739
-10
Department of the Treasury
International Development Assistance
Global Environment Facility
1
41
38
68
+30
Total 2
540
787
807
+20
Note:
1
The total FY 2003 request for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is $177.8 million. Approximately 38% of total
GEF funding from all sources supports climate-related projects (e.g. expanding clean energy production and efficient
energy use). The GEF, which also provides funding for other global environmental concerns, does not allocate
funds by project type.
2
Total may not add due to rounding.
Other Climate-Change Related Programs. The FY 2003 budget includes $807 million, an increase
of $20 million over FY 2002 enacted, for several programs in which there is, or can be, significant
greenhouse gas co-benefits. These include programs that exist primarily for another purpose or have
multiple environmental benefits, but which have the additional result of reducing fossil fuel use or
improving energy efficiency. The programs in this category include:
DOE -- Low Income Weatherization and State Energy Grants. The budget proposes $316
million, an increase of $41 million over FY 2002 enacted, for programs that facilitate energy
efficiency investments at the State and local level. These programs provide energy conservation
services, such as insulation, to low-income Americans, reducing energy costs for consumers,
improving health and safety, and reducing carbon emissions. The State Energy Program
provides grants that enable States to tailor energy efficiency programs to local needs and
leverage non-Federal resources.
DOE -- Cleaner Coal and Natural Gas Efficiencies. The budget includes $398 million, a
decrease of $44 million from FY 2002 enacted, to support DOE's R&D effort to help industry
develop advanced technologies to produce and use coal, and gas resources more efficiently and
22
cleanly. Federally-funded development of clean, highly-efficient gas-fired and coal-fired
generating systems aims to reduce gas emission rates, while reducing electricity costs compared
to currently available technologies. Programs also include efforts to discover effective, efficient,
and economical means of sequestering carbon dioxide.
DOE - Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI). The budget proposes $25 million, a
decrease of $7 million from FY 2002 enacted, to continue investigator-initiated research and
development at universities, national laboratories, and industry to advance nuclear power
technology. NERI research and development focuses on proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel
technologies, high performance/efficient reactor technology, advanced nuclear fuels, and new
technologies for the minimization and management of nuclear waste.
Department of the Treasury - Global Environment Facility (GEF). See Addendum.
23
Detailed Accounting of Federal Climate Change Expenditures
Table 8. Programs and Tax Policies Related to Climate Change
By Appropriation Account/Line Item
FY 2003 Budget
(Budget authority and tax incentives; in millions of dollars)
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Programs and Tax Policies Directly Related to Climate
Change
Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewable Energy, and
Sequestration
Department of Energy (DOE)
Energy Supply
375
393
408
+15
Renewable Energy Resources R&D
(370)
(386)
(408)
(+22)
Nuclear Energy
(5)
(7)
(0)
(-7)
Energy Conservation R&D
619
640
588
-52
Fossil Energy R&D (sequestration R&D)
18
32
54
+22
Science (Basic Science)
35
35
35
0
Energy Information Administration
3
3
3
0
Subtotal - DOE
1,050
1,103
1,088
-15
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Environmental Programs and Management
96
89
91
+2
Science and Technology
27
26
17
-9
Subtotal - EPA
123
115
108
-7
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service
Forest and Rangeland Research
3
0
1
+1
Agricultural Research Service
0
0
5
+5
Subtotal - USDA
3
0
6
+6
Subtotal - Energy Efficiency, Conservation, Renewable
Energy, & Sequestration
1
1,176
1,218
1,202
-16
Revenue Effect of Tax Proposals
0
0
555
+555
24
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Directly Related Programs (cont'd)
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
9
10
11
+1
National Eye Institute
14
17
18
+1
National Cancer Institute
31
34
39
+5
National Institute of Arthritis & Musculoskeletal
& Skin Diseases
*
*
*
*
Subtotal - HHS/NIH²
54
60
68
+8
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology
1,176
1,090
1,109
+19
Department of Energy
Science (Biological & Environmental Research)
116
120
126
+6
National Science Foundation
Research and Related Activities
181
188
188
0
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service
29
30
30
0
Cooperative State Research, Education, &
Extension Services
Research and Education
4
9
17
+8
Economic Research Service
1
1
1
0
Forest Service
Forest and Rangeland Research
17
17
17
0
Subtotal - USDA
51
57
65
+8
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Operations, Research, and Facilities
93
100
100
0
Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
27
28
28
0
Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology
23
21
22
+1
Smithsonian Institution
Salaries and Expenses
7
7
7
0
Subtotal USGCRP³
1,728
1,670
1,714
+44
25
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Directly Related Programs (cont'd)
Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI)
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Operations, Research, and Facilities
0
0
18
+18
National Science Foundation
Research and Related Activities
0
0
15
+15
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology
0
0
3
+3
Department of Energy
Science (Biological & Environmental Research)
0
0
3
+3
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service
Forest and Rangeland Research
0
0
1
+1
Subtotal - CCRI
0
0
40
+40
International Assistance
Agency for International Development (AID)
Development Assistance (DA)
112
110
109
-1
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
---
12
6
-6
Assistance for the Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union (FSA)
31
32
27
-5
Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States
(AEEB)
13
10
8
-2
International Disaster Assistance (IDA)
---
4
5
+1
Development Credit Authority (DCA)
1
---
---
---
Tropical Forest Conservation⁴
---
---
50
+50
Subtotal - AID 5
157
167
205
+38
Department of Treasury
Debt Restructuring
Tropical Forest Conservation 6
13
5
--
-5
Department of State
International Organizations and Programs
7
7
6
-1
Subtotal - International Assistance 7
177
179
211
+32
26
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
Change
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
2002-2003
Other Climate Change-Related Programs
Department of Energy
Energy Conservation R&D
Weatherization & State Energy Grants
191
275
316
+41
Fossil Energy R&D (cleaner coal & natural gas)
274
442
398
-44
Energy Supply
Nuclear Energy R&D (Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI))
34
32
25
-7
Subtotal - DOE
499
749
739
-10
Department of the Treasury
International Development Assistance, Multilateral
Assistance, International Financial Institutions --
Global Environment Facility8
41
38
68
+30
Subtotal - Other Climate Change Programs 9
540
787
807
+20
Total -- All Programs and Tax Policies 10
3,603
3,822
4,475
+653
Note:
Table 8 is a detailed listing of Federal climate change expenditures by agency with account level information as
provided in the President's FY 2003 Budget Appendix. All numbers represent budget authority unless
otherwise noted. The line items in the Program and Financing schedule in the Budget Appendix use
obligations, not budget authority, so the numbers may not be comparable.
* less than $500,000
1 Subtotal may not add due to rounding.
2 Subtotal may not add due to rounding.
3 Subtotal may not add due to rounding.
4
Prior to the FY 2003 Budget request, funding for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) was appropriated to
the Treasury Department.
5 Subtotal may not add due to rounding.
6
In FY 2002, an additional $20 million in existing balances may be used.
7 Subtotal may not add due to rounding.
8
The total FY 2003 request for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is $177.8 million. Approximately 38% of
total GEF funding from all sources supports climate-related projects (e.g. expanding clean energy production and
efficient energy use). The GEF, which also provides funding for other global environmental concerns, does not
allocate funds by project type.
9 Subtotal may not add due to rounding.
10 Total may not add due to rounding. Total adjusted to eliminate double counts.
27
Addendum
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF)
FY 2003 Budget Request
The FY 2003 Budget requests $107.5 million for the GEF for the first of four annual payments under
the third GEF replenishment (GEF-3) and $70.3 million to clear one-third of the U.S. arrears to GEF-2.
The clean energy portion of the GEF portfolio - its climate change focal area - accounts for about 38
percent of its financial commitments, which is about $68 million for climate-related activities in FY 2003.
Background on the Organization
The GEF was created in 1991, before any climate convention or protocol existed, to specialize in trans-
border environment problems, of which climate is only one. In addition to climate change, GEF funding
is focused on international water pollution and overfishing; better forestry, wildlife management, and
biological diversity conservation; and phasing out use of ozone-depleting chemicals (in Eastern Europe,
to complement Montreal Protocol Fund work in developing countries).
The 1992 Climate Convention (the "1992 Convention") provided that there should be a "financial
mechanism" to: (1) help developing countries evaluate, quantify, and report publicly on their greenhouse
gas emissions; and (2) make investments in cleaner development in developing countries. In 1994, more
than three years before conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. and other countries chose the GEF
as the institution to run the financial mechanism of the Climate Convention, in part to avoid creating new
institutions. The GEF was by far the best existing institution for the job.
By 1995, donors had concluded a first GEF replenishment that extensively restructured the GEF and
improved its operational effectiveness. This restructuring also cemented a governance structure in which
donors exercise much more power than in the 1992 Convention or in any standard "UN-configured"
institution.
GEF Operations
The GEF focuses on innovative, cost-effective and generally small projects that can be duplicated
elsewhere with financing from non-GEF sources. Since beginning regular operations in 1994, the GEF
has designed and initiated over 1,047 investment and capacity building projects in over 161 countries
that are now being implemented by developing countries with the help of three agencies -- the World
Bank, the UN Development Program, and the UN Environment Program. GEF has committed about
$3.7 billion to date, leveraging over $15 billion from other sources. Cofinanciers include the developing
countries themselves, bilateral aid agencies, the GEF's three implementing agencies and other multilateral
financial institutions, and, in some cases, private sector investors and non-governmental organizations.
Leveraging for clean energy projects is significant: $799 million in cofinancing was leveraged in
association with $86 million in GEF grants in FY 2002. GEF operations take two forms: (1) technical
28
assistance to help developing countries frame more environmentally sound policies in key sectors such as
energy production and land management; and (2) direct investments to demonstrate innovative
technology projects, such as rural solar power, that countries then can copy on a larger scale.
No Projects That Are Kyoto-Specific
The GEF predates both the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 1992 Convention, and the Protocol places no
new obligations on the GEF as the Convention's financial mechanism. With regard to development
finance, the Protocol is related to the GEF through the Protocol's umbrella, the 1992 Convention, since
the GEF acts as the financial mechanism for the Convention; it simply underscores existing 1992
Convention agreements on financial assistance for developing countries:
Supporting developing country reporting requirements under the 1992 Convention; and
Providing the extra cost over normal development costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
energy or other projects. For example, the GEF covers only the incremental cost of a clean wind
power plant relative to a regular oil-fired plant of identical capacity.
GEF Climate Change-Related Clean Energy Activities
The GEF supports five categories of climate-change related projects, all but one focused on the energy
sector. The first category is small activities (generally costing about $350,000) to assist countries in
preparing reports required under the 1992 Convention. These reports provide detailed inventories of
countries' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sources (power plants, etc.), their GHG "sinks"
(forests,etc.), and policies and programs that affect GHG emissions (energy pricing policies, etc.).
The four other categories, briefly illustrated with project examples below, all support clean energy
development, usually combined with capacity-building for good policies and effective institutions. These
programs make sense on their own terms and are all initiatives the U.S. has been pursuing domestically
for years. None of them is directed by the Protocol.
The GEF already undertakes systematic annual portfolio performance evaluation. Criteria include quality
of overall project management, financial management, policy impacts, country capacity development,
civil society engagement, and pollution abatement. For example, for energy efficiency projects,
evaluators compare investments in efficient equipment following the GEF intervention to a baseline
scenario of efficiency investments. An extensive effort to update and improve measurement criteria at
both project and program levels for climate change activities has been concluded. These measurements
are now being used to ensure projects and programs achieve their objectives.
Promoting Energy Efficiency and Conservation
The GEF's Mexico High Efficiency Lighting Project aimed to reduce energy waste and power plant
pollution by proving the commercial viability of energy efficient lighting. $10 million from GEF leveraged
29
pollution by proving the commercial viability of energy efficient lighting. $10 million from GEF leveraged
over $13 million in initial cofinancing. Since the project's completion, its long-term impacts have
outstripped all expectations. Mexican consumers and businesses have installed almost 40% more
efficient lights than the GEF's most optimistic projections. The project's success also convinced Mexico
to expand dramatically energy efficiency programs in other locations and sectors.
Promoting Renewable Energy
In Sri Lanka, a GEF project has succeeded in supplying electricity by employing renewable technologies
and demonstrating the advantages of such technologies to rural households and the country in general.
This $5.9 million GEF grant has leveraged $49.4 million in cofinancing, including $24.2 million from the
World Bank. Approximately 30 megawatts of mini-hydropower has been added to the grid through
private developers, and a total of 8,800 households have been provided with electricity through village
hydropower and solar photovoltaic power. The aim is to provide for the replication of such renewable
energy schemes by private businesses in Sri Lanka and many other countries.
Lowering the Long-Term Cost of Advanced Clean Energy Technologies
The Brazil Biomass Power Commercial Demonstration Project uses high-efficiency technology to use
agricultural byproducts as fuel for electric power and agro-industry process heat. A $40.5 million GEF
investment leverages $82 million, mostly from Brazilian public and private sources. The project should
help increase economies of scale for this promising technology and thus help it become commercially
viable. By conservative estimates, biomass power could supply clean electricity to 100 million rural
people, particularly needed in Africa and South Asia.
Clean Fossil-Fuel Combustion and Other Short-Term Measures
The GEF's $10 million Coal Bed Methane Project demonstrated at three sites a wide variety of
techniques and technologies that Chinese coal mines can employ to reduce methane emissions and
capture clean-burning methane as a fuel. It also spawned landmark policy and institutional reforms,
including the creation of the China United Coal Bed Methane Corporation, that support replication of
coal-bed methane recovery. The Chinese Ministry of Coal has since negotiated agreements with BP-
Amoco and other companies for coal-bed methane projects. Based on the GEF's early work, the Asian
Development Bank, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the China United Coal Bed Methane
Corporation are all working to expand coal-bed methane development in China.
30
APPENDIX A
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Global Climate Change Funding (GCC)
(Dollars in millions)
Reporting
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
BUREAU/COUNTRY
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE NAME
Category
Obligations
Estimate
Proposed
Africa (AFR)
Guinea
Increased use of Sustainable Natural
3
1,000
2,000
2,000
Resources Mgmt Practices
Madagascar
Biologically Diverse Ecosystems Conserved
3
2,500
2,500
2,500
Malawi
Sustainable Use, Conservation, & Mgmt of
3
2,000
1,000
1,000
Renewable Natural Resources
Mali
Increased Value-Added of Specific Economic
3
1,000
1,500
-
Sectors
Accelerated Economic Growth
3
-
-
1,500
Mozambique
Increased Rural Household Incomes
3
2,000
2,000
2,000
Senegal
More effective Management of Services &
3
-
1,000
1,000
Resources
South Africa
Improved Capacity to Implement Economic
1
500
-
-
Policy
Housing and Municipal Services
1
2,500
3,000
3,000
Uganda
Expanded Opportunities for Rural Sector
3
3,500
2,500
Growth
2,500
AFR/Regional/SD
Central Africa Regional Program for
3
3,000
3,000
3,000
Environment (CARPE)
(CARPE) Climate Monitoring & Observing
5
500
FEWS Climate Monitoring and Observing
5
1,000
6,000
6,000
Western Africa Regional
Food Security, ENV and Natural Resource
3
1,000
-
-
Program
Mgmt Strengthened
-
Climate Monitoring and Observing
5
,
-
500
Initiative
for
Southern Increased Regional Cooperation in Natural
3
I
500
500
Africa
Resource Mgmt
Climate Monitoring and Observing
5
-
i
500
Regional Economic Dev. Climate Monitoring and Observing
5
-
-
500
Service Office (REDSO/E)
TOTAL AFR
20,000
25,000
27,000
Asia and the Near East (ANE)
Afghanistan
Climate Monitoring and Observing
5
-
-
1,000
Bangladesh
Improved Performance of the Energy Sector
1
1,000
3,470
3,470
Improved Performance of the Energy Sectorl
-
1,500
1,500
31
Egypt
Mgt of Env. and Natural Resources in
1
-
7,280
1,155
Targeted Sectors Improved
India
Increased Environmental Protection in
1
2,843
6,050
6,050
Energy, Industry, & Cities
Increased Environmental Protection in
1
I
3,000
3,000
Energy, Industry, & Cities
Indonesia
Energy Sector Governance Strengthened
1
3,823
3,130
3,130
Nepal
Increased Private Sector Participation &
1
2,000
2,200
2,200
Investment in Hydropower
Philippines
Protection of Productive Life Sustaining
1
2,997
3,000
3,000
Natural Resources
USAEP
U.S. Asia Environmental Partnership
1
4,100
2,000
3,100
SARI/E
South Asia Regional Initiative - Energy Program
1
3,900
2,900
2,900
ANE/Regional
Program Development & Learning
1
-
150
150
Climate Monitoring and Observing
5
-
@
1,000
TOTAL ANE
20,663
34,680
30,655
Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC)
Bolivia
Sustainable Forest Management and Parks
3
4,527
4,550
5,764
Brazil
Env & Socioeconomically Sustainable
3
2,500
1,465
2,840
Alternatives for Sound Land Use
Clean and Efficient Energy Production and
1
2,368
1,000
1,000
Use
Dominican Republic
Sustainable Forestry
3
1,492
1,500
1,500
Ecuador
Conserving Ecuador's Forests
3
3,688
3,057
850
Guatemala
Conserving and Sustainable Using Forests
3
570
600
450
G-CAP (Central America)
Improved Management in the Mesoamerican
3
510
415
595
Biological Corridor
Improved Management in the Mesoamerican
1
1,300
230
230
Biological Corridor
Improved Management in the Mesoamerican
5
1,050
180
580
Biological Corridor
Honduras
Protecting Honduran Forests
3
3,691
2,600
4,800
LAC Regional
Improved Conservation of the Region's
3
964
4,636
2,800
Biological Resources
Mexico
Protecting Tropical Forest
3
4,164
3,365
4,765
Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency
5
600
400
500
Fires
1
1,421
1,750
1,500
Nicaragua
Improving Park Management
3
4,970
4,723
1,129
Panama
Conserving Forests
3
240
,
-
Paraguay
Conserving Paraguay's Sub-Tropical Forests
3
1,000
1,000
1,000
Peru
Improved Environmental Management
3
1,621
-
-
Strengthen Environmental Management
3
,
1,227
1,500
TOTAL LAC
36,676
32,697
31,803
32
Europe and Eurasia (E&E)
Albania
Growth in Number of Self-Sustaining Private
1
1,500
750
500
Enterprises
Bulgaria
Special Initiatives
3
1,200
500
500
Accelerated Development & Growth of the
1
-
400
450
Private Sector
Croatia
Growth of a Dynamic and Competitive
1
-
500
-
Private Sector
Romania
Economically Sustainable and
1
1,100
1,900
1,500
Environmentally Sound Energy Sector
CEE Regional
Economically Sustainable and
1
7,576
5,726
4,901
Environmentally Sound Energy Sector
Increased Environmental Mgmt Capacity to
3
932
-
215
Sppt Sustainable Ec Growth
Increased Environmental Mgmt Capacity to
1
214
-
87
Sppt Sustainable Ec Growth
Sub-total Europe
12,522
9,776
8,153
Armenia
Economically Sustainable and
1
4,750
590
5,100
Environmentally Sound Energy Sector
More Sustainable Water Management for
Enhanced Env Quality
1
-
300
500
Georgia
Economically Sustainable and
1
6,860
14,500
6,400
Environmentally Sound Energy Sector
Kazakhstan
Improved Management of Critical Natural
1
2,000
1,000
500
Resources, including Energy
Kyrgyzstan
Improved Management of Critical Natural
1
750
650
1,500
Resources, including Energy
Moldova
Private Enterprise Growth Creates Jobs and
1
4,575
4,575
5,150
Generates Income
Russia
Accelerated Development and Growth of
1
400
883
718
Private Enterprises
Cross-Cutting Programs
3
1,600
2,717
2,282
Tajikistan
Improved Management of Critical Natural
1
-
20
30
Resources, including Energy
Turkmenistan
Improved Management of Critical Natural
1
10
200
200
Resources, including Energy
Ukraine
Economically Sustainable and
1
8,284
3,475
3,275
Environmentally Sound Energy Sector
Increased Env Mgmt Capacity to Support
1,645
460
Sustainable Development
1
NIS Regional
Economically Sustainable and Environmentally
1
1,060
935
935
Sound Energy Sector
Increased Environmental Mgmt Capacity to
1
940
340
340
Spt Sustainable Ec Growth
Sub-total Eurasia
31,229
31,830
27,390
TOTAL E&E
43,751
41,606
35,543
33
Economic Growth, Agriculture & Trade (EGAT)
EGAT/ENV
Office of Environment and Natural Resources
3
8,324
7,626
7,626
EGAT/ENV
Office of Environment and Natural Resources
1
-
-
-
EGAT/ENV
Office of Environment, Energy and
1
16,000
12,000
10,000
Technology
EGAT/ENV
Global Climate Change
1
3,000
2,575
1,000
EGAT/ENV
Global Climate Change
5
-
900
750
EGAT/ENV
Global Climate Change
3
3,000
500
325
EGAT/EGAD
AFS
3
2,022
2,775
2,775
EGAT/EGAD
AFS
3
3,000
3,000
3,000
TOTAL EGAT
35,346
29,376
25,476
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA)
DCHA/OFDA
Worldwide Climate Monitoring and Observing
5
-
4,000
5,000
TOTAL DCHA
4,000
5,000
Tropical Forest Conservation (A)
[13,000]
[5,000]
50,000
Development Credit Authority (DCA)
Bulgaria (B)
1
625
-
-
TOTAL DCA
625
-
-
TOTAL USAID
157,061
167,359
205,477
Notes:
(A) Before the FY 2003 Request, funding for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act was appropriated to the Treasury
Department. In FY 2002, up to an additional $20 million in existing Treasury Department balances may be used. The
bracketed amounts are not included in AID's totals.
(B) Development Credit Authority is a competitive program funded by transfer authority. The FY2001 level is the
subsidy amount obligated. The leveraged amount through FY 2000 is $22.3 million.
FY 2002 Legislative Reporting Categories
1) Activities that promote the transfer and deployment of United States clean energy technologies: Under USAID's
Climate Change Program, technology transfer is promoted to assist developing countries to achieve sustainable growth
and development but is not tracked as an individual goal within the program. USAID's energy-related climate change
programs demonstrate U.S. technologies and/or work to address the policy, legal and regulatory barriers that limit clean
technology deployment.
2) Activities to assist in the measurement, monitoring, reporting, verification, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions:
USAID does not currently separate measuring, monitoring, reporting and verification of GHG emissions from the energy
and land use sector activities in which these occur. All of the activities that assist with technology transfer and carbon
capture promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
3) Activities/programs to promote carbon capture and sequestration measures
34
4) Activities/programs to help meet such countries' responsibilities under the Framework Convention on Climate Change:
The spending for this category has not been formally tracked under USAID's Climate Change Program. It has been tracked
as a performance indicator of program results and information concerning results through FY 2000 and can be provided
upon request.
5) Activities to develop assessments of the vulnerability to impacts of climate change and response strategies
35